G.J. C.M.P., Vol. 2(3) 2013:52-59 ISSN: 2319 – 7285

AN ANALYSIS OF GLOBALIZATION ON SOME MACRO ECONOMIC VARIABLES IN Oladimeji, Moruff Sanjo (Ph.D.)* Muse, Sulaimon Adigun**, & Yusuff, Modupe Ololade*** *Dept. of Economics, Michael Otedola College of Pry. Education, Noforija-Epe, State. Nigeria. **Dept. of Political Science, Michael Otedola College of Pry. Education, Noforija-Epe, . Nigeria. ***Dept. of Economics, Michael Otedola College of Pry. Education, Noforija-Epe, Lagos State. Nigeria.

Abstract Globalization as a universal phenomenon has enjoyed a tremendous spotlight in the academic communities such that it has become an acceptable vocabulary world wide. Most scholars, if not all from the developed countries have often recommended globalization as one process that can lift the developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. This study further investigates the factors that are assumed to be determinants of economic development in Nigeria using a 47 years annualized data from 1965-2011. The factors investigated are macro economic variables such external reserves, inflation rate, foreign exchange and Balance of Payment (BOP) taken as independent variables while by Gross Domestic Product (GDP), is the dependent variable. For this purpose, a model was formulated. The model was regressed using the least square method. Secondary source of data got from the CBN Annual Reports and Accounts, and Statistical Bulletins was used. The results got from the data analyzed shows that there is a significant relationship between globalization and macro-economic variables selected in Nigeria.

Keywords: Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Foreign Exchange Rate Movement, Balance of Payment (BOP), External Reserves, Inflation rate.

1. Introduction Globalization is a phenomenon which has come to stay. It is irreversible and inevitable given the socio-political, economic changes and technological development witnesses in the world in recent times. Globalization has removed barriers to the tree flow of goods, people, services as well as capital. However, in the day to day interaction among nation-states, some prospects and challenges have ensured and this is bound to continue. Globalization to some extent has recorded some improvements in the lives of the people of Africa, but it has also brought difficulties to the people through different means such as the globalization of the world financial market place which has been systematically designed to favour developed countries, particularly the west. The use of technological advancement was also not left out, this was designed in other to be ahead of the African states in the usage of sophisticated information technology to erode the sovereignty of the African states, which also lead to cultural imperialism and a subtle may of re-colonizing the African states. ( Adegbola and muse, 2008).

1.1 Research Questions The research questions for this study were as follows: 1. Is there any significant relationship between globalisation and balance of payment of Nigeria? 2. Is there any significant relationship between globalisation and inflation rate in Nigeria? 3. Does globalisation has any impact on the foreign exchange in Nigeria? 4. Can globalisation be affected by the external reserves of Nigeria?

1.2 Hypotheses Four main hypotheses were formulated and tested in the study: Ho1: There is no significant relationship between globalisation and balance of payment of Nigeria Ho2: There is no significant relationship between globalisation and inflation rate in Nigeria Ho3: Globalisation does not have any positive impact on the foreign exchange in Nigeria H04: Globalisation can not be affected by the external reserves in Nigeria.

2. Conceptual Clarifications and Theoretical Framework

2.1 Globalization, What is it all About? Globalization is a process of advancement and increase in interaction among the world’s countries and changes in locomotion, politics, communication, military power, knowledge and skills as well as interfacing of cultural and value system and practices. Nsibambi (2001), describes globalization as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that what is happening in a particular country or continent is shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice-versa.

52 G.J. C.M.P., Vol. 2(3) 2013:52-59 ISSN: 2319 – 7285

Globalization according to IMF,(1997), is the rapid integration of economic worldwide through trade, financial flows technological spillovers, information network and cross cultural currents. Strand, (1996) also defined with the IMF by expressing the fact that globalization involves the tying of firms, production, product market and financial markets objects slide of being in which an individual is incapable of utilizing resources around him to improve himself economically, socially, politically or otherwise. It could also be due to lack of opportunity for education which is basic to human development. UNICEF (1999), gave a better picture of the incidence of poverty in Nigeria in that the incidence of poverty rose from 15% in 1974 to 35% in the urban area and 40% in the rural areas in 1990s. This later rose to 43% in the mid 1990s. The GNP in Nigeria was always declining. In 1993, the GNP was $310 and this declined to $250 in 1995. In 1996, 48% of Nigerians were said to have lived below poverty line, with 15.2% living under object poverty. From the above, it is clear that globalization as a concept involved the interaction and inter-connectedness among nations of the world, with the development of sophisticated communication and an information gadget which makes it possible for people to interact and exchange information and ideas. Nations hence now become ready permeable to the power of the new communication systems, that has also narrow distances amongst nation of the world and this made the world a global village.

2.2 Nigeria Economy

2.2.1 External Trade in Nigeria Nigeria imported about US$26 billion of goods in 2005. It could be notice that the leading sources of imports were China (9.4%), the United States (8.4%), the United Kingdom (7.8%), the Netherlands (5.9%), France (5.4%), Germany (4.8%), and Italy (4%) in 2004. Principal imports were manufactured goods, machinery and transport equipment, chemicals, and food and live animals. The Nigeria exported about US$52 billion of goods in 2005, but in 2004, the leading destinations for exports were the United States (47.4%), Brazil (10.7%), and Spain (7.1%). In 2004 oil accounted for 95% of merchandise exports, and cocoa and rubber accounted for almost 60% of the remainder. In 2005, Nigeria posted a US$26 billion trade surplus, corresponding to almost 20% of gross domestic product. In 2005, Nigeria achieved a positive current account balance of US$9.6 billion with the exchange rate of about US$1=NGN128.4 in 2006. In recent years, Nigeria has expanded its trade relations with other developing countries such as India. Nigeria is the largest African crude oil supplier to India — it annually exports 400,000 barrels per day (64,000 m3/d) to India valued at US$10 billion annually. The trade volume between Nigeria and the United Kingdom rose by 35% from USD6.3 billion in 2010 to USD8.5 billion in 2011 (AllAfrica.com, 2012).

2.2.2 Macro-Economic Trend This is a chart of trend of gross domestic product of Nigeria at market prices estimated by the International Monetary Fund with figures in $USD Billions. Figures before 2000 are backwards projections from the 2000 - 2012 numbers, based on historical growth rates, and should be replaced when data becomes available.

Table 2.1: Table Showing the Trend of Gross Domestic Product of Nigeria at Market Prices

Inflation Index Year Gross Domestic Product, US Dollar Exchange Per Capita Income (2000=100) (PPP, in Billions) (as % of USA) 1980 *58 1 Naira 1.30 7% 1985 *82 3 Naira 3.20 5% 1990 *118 9 Naira 8.10 2.5% 1995 *155 50 Naira 56 3% 2000 170 100 Naira 100 3.5% 2005 291 130 Naira 207 4% 2010 392 150 Naira 108 5% 2012 451 158 Naira 121 7%

Source: Retrieved from Wikipedia (2013) This is a chart of trend of the global ranking of the Nigerian economy, in comparison with other countries of the world, derived from the historical List of countries by GDP (PPP).

Table 2.2: Table Showing the Trend Global Ranking of the Nigerian economy Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Ranking 52 47 38 37 34 31 31 30 Source: Retrieved from Wikipedia (2013)

53 G.J. C.M.P., Vol. 2(3) 2013:52-59 ISSN: 2319 – 7285

For purchasing power parity comparisons, the US Dollar is exchanged at 75.75 Nigerian Naira only. Current GDP per capita] of Nigeria expanded 132% in the Sixties reaching a peak growth of 283% in the Seventies. But this proved unsustainable and it consequently shrank by 66% in the Eighties. In the Nineties, diversification initiatives finally took effect and decadal growth was restored to 10%. Due to inflation, per capita GDP today remains lower than in 1960 when Nigeria declared independence. About 45% of the population lives on less than US$2 per day. In 2012 the GDP was composed of the following sectors: agriculture: 40%; services: 30%; manufacturing: 15%; oil: 14% (2012 est.) (News, 2012).

2.3 Globalization and the Nigeria’s Economy African countries including Nigeria having witnessed series of slavery, colonialism, subjugation, neo-colonialism and imperialism was fully integrated into the unequal economic system without adequate propagation in term of human and material resources, (UN, 2011 Report), has ranked Nigeria as the eighth most populous countries in the world with a relatively open economy. However, in spite of the large population, the contribution to total world output and trade is very insignificant. Paris club report (2002), has shown that Nigeria economy has been fiddle with high burden of external debt. The total stuck stood as 27.8 billion US dollars in 2000, and 29.8 million US dollars in 2003 with the largest proportion of it owned to the Paris club. The country spent an average of US 1.644 billion dollars on debt servicing per year in the last few years which is a sizeable amount that could have been infected into the economy for further production purposes and development. It is very obvious that the economy growing from bad to worse as people can no longer afford the basic necessities of life, housing, food clothing water etc and many activities in various cities and town are folding up leading to a high rate of unemployment in the country. Cultural imperialism is another challenge created that has added to the economic woes of Nigeria. A good number of our youths in kano, Port harcout, Lagos, Calabar, just to mention few are no longer believe in their own country, but have all confidence in the western countries of Europe and the united states of America. This is clearly shown in the type of foreign and imported fabrics they put on, which is totally anti-Nigerian culture and tradition, particularly the female folks. Now more than ever, Nigerian citizens takes delight in taking foreign food such as burger, meat pie, salad and so on at the expense of the native food and delicacies such as vegetable soup, edikaikan, fufu, tuwo shinkafa and this development has led to foreign eateries and cafeterias taking up the entire landscape of the countries, with its attendant health implicated effect. Today, more and more Nigerians cannot speak their local dialect freely and fluently but are able to initiate the ascent of the British, Americans and so on. To this extent, Tomlinson (1991) has equated globalization to westernization. Furthermore, the unprecedented mobility of global capital has created a stronger lineages between economic and financial constituencies around the would and the destinies of people in Nigeria such as the petroleum works, cocoa farmers and the prices are being fixed and regulated by the developed countries. This brings about low foreign exchange earning for the country. Moreover, the multinational corporations MNC are also exploiting the triumph of the market and strengthening other control not over what is left of the nation states but also over the global economy. There are about 400,000 transnational corporations in the world with 2000,000 affiliated and together they control 755 of global trade in manufactured goods and services. Nsibambi,(2001), has encapsulated the negative effects of globalization on the African states 1. As cultures interact, some cultures are being delited and or destroyed at the expense of others and negative values are being spread all over the world with relatives ease by globalization. 2. The world is now divided between the countries who know and who have a monopoly on almost everything and the isolated who do not know and who practically have nothing. 3. Globalization has encouraged illicit trade on drug, prostitution, human smuggling, pornography, dumping of waste by simplifies. 4. Globalization has set new global rules that have further margnimised African poor countries and people especially in the area of trade. 5. Globalization has created a global village of privilege people whose bonders are impenetrable to the poor, uncorneted and unskilled. The citizens of global village are few.

3. Methodology This research work made used of ordinary least square regression technique to estimate the parameters and also to looked into the joint effects of the independent variables on the dependent variable. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the dependent variable while, Balance of Payment (BOP), external reserves, foreign exchange rate Inflation rate are the independent variables. Moreover, several researches such as Aremo and Aiyegbusi (2011), Nwude(2012) Aron et al (1997), Bianco (2006), Gali and Monacelli (2004) used the growth rate approach to analyse the effect of variables such as external reserves, Balance of payment, foreign exchange rate, interest rate, etc on macroeconomic variables. The growth rates were used because it is better than nominal value as put together by Nwude(2012), Aron et al (1997) and Bianco (2008). Walsh and Sodhestorom cited in Leitemo and Torvik (2005).

54 G.J. C.M.P., Vol. 2(3) 2013:52-59 ISSN: 2319 – 7285

In order to determine the impact of Gross Domestic Product on the External Reserves, Inflation, foreign exchange and Balance of Payment, The below model was formulated and a multiple regression analysis was carried out. GDPGR = α0 +α1ERGR + α2IGR + α3FXGR + α4BOPGR + Ut GDPGR = Gross Domestic Product growth rate, α0 = a constant, while α1, α2, α3, α4, Ut are the respective coefficients or slope of the independent variables, ERGR = External Reserves growth rate, IGR = Inflation rate growth rate, FXGR = Foreign Exchange rate growth rate, BOPGR= Balance of Payment growth rate, and Ut is the error term of the regression.

Regression Results The result obtained upon running the regression is presented below GDPGR = α0 + α1ERGR + α2IGR + α3FXGR + α4BOPGR + Ut 18.798 + 0.072ERGR + 0.068IGR + 0.008FXGR + 0.02BOPGR SE = (3.907), (0.0231), (0.041), (0.069), (0.001), t = 4.811 3.107 1. 636 0.115 1.315 R = 0.518 R2 = 0.268 Adjusted R2 = 0.183 F = 3.154 DW = 1.867

Consider the above result, 18.798 gives the estimate of the parameter α0. This figure represents the autonomous Gross Domestic Product, that is, the value of the Gross Domestic Product when all the independent variables are zero. The α0 accounts for the portion of the Gross Domestic Product that is not affected by changes in the independent variables. The coefficients α0 ,α1, α2, α3, α4, which give the slope are 0.072, 0.0681, 0.008, 0.02, respectively. This means that if External Reserves, Inflation rate, Foreign Exchange, BOP, go up by one unit (a percentage point), ceteris paribus, Gross Domestic Product will increase by 0.072, 0.0681, 0.008, 0.02 percentage points as a result of the effects of the growth rate in External Reserves, Inflation, Foreign Exchange, BOP, respectively. The R2 is the coefficient of determination which measures the percentage of variation in the dependent variable as been explained by the regression model. The adjusted R2 is also a coefficient of determination but it is a better value as it accounts for the degree of freedom and as such, will be adopted for the purpose of interpretation. The R2 value of 0.268, shows that there is a 26.8% degree of relationship between Gross Domestic Product and the independent variables(External Reserves, Inflation, Foreign Exchange, BOP,). Even though relationship of 26.8% is positive, it is not significant enough. The adjusted R2 even shows it better with the positive but very low percentage of 18.3%. This means that a variation or change in the independent variables would lead to a positive change in the dependent variable to the tune of 18.3%. It could be implied as well not to have a relationship since it is very low and so close to zero. The Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.867, which is use to test for serial or autocorrelation, this result shows that there is little or no correlation in the model because the value exceeds that of R2. The observed F-statistic of 3.154 which is less than the tabular F-statistic (0.16) at 5% level of significance shows that there is no significant relationship between Gross Domestic Product and the independent variables(External Reserves, Inflation, Foreign Exchange, BOP,). Even with t-statistic all the independent variable coefficients are not statistically significant hence any relationship whatsoever between the dependent and independent variables may be by chance.

4. Conclusion and Recommendations Globalization, which forcefully integrated the African states including Nigeria into the international capitalist system was such that affected the state soveresfuy, economic autonomy, cultural infiltration and political independence. The nature economy to the west and made her economy to be vulnerable to the minitest international economic shocks and frustration. With this in place, the stage was set for a depended political, socio-economic crisis in the sense of the criterion of human development, strength of the national currency, per-capital income, industrial capacity utilization, the value of the National currency and so on. Hence, the following recommendations will further enhance economic development of Nigeria; - The non-oil sector of the economy such as agriculture, mining, manufacturing, power and stand should be exploited and further diversified; this will lead to increase in export of other foods and products. - The purchasing power of Nigerians should be strengthened and a stable macro-economic environment created will help Nigeria to benefit more from the present globalization process. - Effective mechanism for coordination and monitoring for further poverty reduction programme should be put in place by the government which must be devoid of mismanagement, illegal diversion of fund, corruption and embedment. - The Nigeria nation must not leave leprosy and be curing ringworm by tackling heading bottlenecks that hinder its ability to raise and sustain high growth with equitable income distribution. These include a skill deficit, the lack of infrastructure, the immaturity of the capital markets regulatory unpredictability, the unnecessary tax burden, high interest rates and the hungering perception that Nigeria is politically unstable. - Furthermore, the glittering land the unnecessary large size of government should be reduced drastically to the largest minimum situation whereby more than 25% of the annual total earning of the country is dedicated to the sustenance of the servicing and refined public servant is not healthy for the country’s economy and must not be encourage for the political, economic further of the country.

References Adegbola A.A. and Muse, S.A. (2008). Globalization: Problems and Prospect for African state. College review of Osun state college of Education, Ila-Orangun. Vol. 15.

55 G.J. C.M.P., Vol. 2(3) 2013:52-59 ISSN: 2319 – 7285

Adenuga, G.A. (2008). Globalization as an imperial of devise: The African Experience Michael Otedola college of primary Education(Mocped) of Arts and social Sciences (MOCASS), vol.1, No.1. Abiodun, L. (2006). Globalization and poverty in the Nigerian Economy, Journal of Arts and social sciences, Tai Solarin University of Education, vol. 8, No 1. Aina, T.A. (1986). What is Political Economy? Nigeria Economic Society. The Nigerian Economy: A political Approach, London, Longman. AllAfrica.com, (2012), Nigeria, UK Trade Hits U.S.$9 Billion in 2011, Africa: retrieved 15 May, 2013 Neiumeji, W (2010) Effects of poverty on Nigerian Politics. International review of Arts and Social Sciences, (IRASS), Michael Otedola college of Primary Education. Vol.1. Chambers English Dictionary (1999). Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) (2004 Economic report. The international monetary fund (IMF) (1997) Economic would outlook. Nsibambi, J (2001) The presence of global capital in Australia and the dispute over national Identity. Paper presented at the scientific sessionary globalization, regionalization and the history of international relations, 18th international congress of historical Sciences. Strand, J.R. (1996). Weighing Globalization in the balance and finding it wanting. Mershon International studies Review, 1090. Vol.4. Tomlinson, J (1991) Cultural Imperialism: A critical introduction, London United Nation (UN) (1996) Development programme on Human Development Report. United nation children Scientific and cultural fund (1999) report. Wahab, T.T (2004) Defining poverty and measuring welfare in developing countries: an implication for policy. Nigeria Social Science Review, Tai Solarin college of education, Ijebu-Ode. Vol.6. no. 1. The World Bank (1993) Energy Sector management Assistance Programme Report in Nigeria.

REGRESSION /DESCRIPTIVES MEAN STDDEV CORR SIG N /MISSING LISTWISE /STATISTICS COEFF OUTS CI(95) R ANOVA COLLIN TOL CHANGE ZPP /CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10) /NOORIGIN /DEPENDENT GDPGR /METHOD=ENTER ERGR IGR DRGR FXGR BOPGR /RESIDUALS DURBIN.

Regression

[DataSet0] C:\Users\user\Documents\DIMEJI GLOBALIZATION.sav

Variables Entered/Removeda Model Variables Variables Method Entered Removed BOPGR, IGR, 1 FXGR, ERGR, . Enter DRGRb a. Dependent Variable: GDPGR b. All requested variables entered.

Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N GDPGR 24.1633 25.86116 49 ERGR 47.3384 148.34784 49 IGR 25.5945 82.04847 49 DRGR 3.8690 22.85324 49 FXGR 17.1227 51.80563 49 BOPGR -396.8041 3009.34122 49 Model Summaryb Model R R Adjusted R Std. Error of Change Statistics Durbin- Square Square the Estimate R Square F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Watson Change Change 1 .518a .268 .183 23.37151 .268 3.154 5 43 .016 1.867 a. Predictors: (Constant), BOPGR, IGR, FXGR, ERGR, DRGR b. Dependent Variable: GDPGR

56 G.J. C.M.P., Vol. 2(3) 2013:52-59 ISSN: 2319 – 7285

Correlations GDPGR ERGR IGR DRGR FXGR BOPGR GDPGR 1.000 .412 .248 .066 .039 .186 ERGR .412 1.000 .038 -.159 -.088 .105 IGR .248 .038 1.000 .071 .008 .032 Pearson Correlation DRGR .066 -.159 .071 1.000 .279 -.286 FXGR .039 -.088 .008 .279 1.000 .065 BOPGR .186 .105 .032 -.286 .065 1.000 GDPGR . .002 .043 .326 .396 .100 ERGR .002 . .398 .138 .273 .237 IGR .043 .398 . .314 .478 .414 Sig. (1-tailed) DRGR .326 .138 .314 . .026 .023 FXGR .396 .273 .478 .026 . .329 BOPGR .100 .237 .414 .023 .329 . GDPGR 49 49 49 49 49 49 ERGR 49 49 49 49 49 49 IGR 49 49 49 49 49 49 N DRGR 49 49 49 49 49 49 FXGR 49 49 49 49 49 49 BOPGR 49 49 49 49 49 49

ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 8614.599 5 1722.920 3.154 .016b 1 Residual 23487.780 43 546.227 Total 32102.379 48 a. Dependent Variable: GDPGR b. Predictors: (Constant), BOPGR, IGR, FXGR, ERGR, DRGR

Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. 95.0% Confidence Correlations Collinearity Statistics Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B B Std. Error Beta Lower Upper Zero- Partial Part Tolerance VIF Bound Bound order (Constant) 18.798 3.907 4.811 .000 10.918 26.678 ERGR .072 .023 .412 3.107 .003 .025 .119 .412 .428 .405 .966 1.035 IGR .068 .041 .214 1.636 .109 -.016 .151 .248 .242 .213 .989 1.011 1 DRGR .186 .164 .164 1.133 .264 -.145 .516 .066 .170 .148 .812 1.232 FXGR .008 .069 .016 .115 .909 -.131 .147 .039 .017 .015 .896 1.116 BOPGR .002 .001 .182 1.315 .195 -.001 .004 .186 .197 .172 .888 1.126 a. Dependent Variable: GDPGR

Model Summaryb Model R R Adjusted R Std. Error of Change Statistics Durbin- Square Square the Estimate R Square F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Watson Change Change 1 .518a .268 .183 23.37151 .268 3.154 5 43 .016 1.867 a. Predictors: (Constant), BOPGR, IGR, FXGR, ERGR, DRGR b. Dependent Variable: GDPGR

57 G.J. C.M.P., Vol. 2(3) 2013:52-59 ISSN: 2319 – 7285

ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 8614.599 5 1722.920 3.154 .016b 1 Residual 23487.780 43 546.227 Total 32102.379 48 a. Dependent Variable: GDPGR b. Predictors: (Constant), BOPGR, IGR, FXGR, ERGR, DRGR

a. Dependent Variable: GDPGR Collinearity Diagnosticsa Model Dimension Eigenvalue Condition Index Variance Proportions (Constant) ERGR IGR DRGR FXGR BOPGR 1 1.773 1.000 .13 .03 .08 .09 .10 .03 2 1.313 1.162 .04 .24 .05 .16 .01 .15 3 .983 1.343 .01 .08 .01 .00 .34 .42 1 4 .851 1.443 .02 .20 .75 .00 .06 .02 5 .606 1.711 .30 .35 .01 .53 .03 .10 6 .474 1.933 .50 .10 .11 .22 .46 .29

a. Dependent Variable: GDPGR Descriptive Statistics N Range Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Variance Skewness Kurtosis Deviation Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Statistic Std. Error Error GDPGR 49 136.54 -18.44 118.10 24.1633 3.69445 25.86116 668.800 1.943 .340 5.204 .668 - - BOPGR 49 22564.67 1960.00 429.90589 3009.34122 9056134.599 -6.557 .340 44.828 .668 20604.67 396.8041 ERGR 49 895.48 -82.12 813.36 47.3384 21.19255 148.34784 22007.082 3.703 .340 16.364 .668 IGR 49 361.60 -86.11 275.49 25.5945 11.72121 82.04847 6731.952 1.281 .340 1.462 .668 DRGR 49 112.06 -50.98 61.08 3.8690 3.26475 22.85324 522.271 .351 .340 .948 .668 FXGR 49 331.76 -8.28 323.48 17.1227 7.40080 51.80563 2683.823 4.793 .340 26.345 .668 Valid N 49 (listwise)

Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. 95.0% Correlations Collinearity Coefficients Coefficients Confidence Statistics Interval for B B Std. Beta Lower Upper Zero- Partial Part Tolerance VIF Error Bound Bound order (Constant) 18.798 3.907 4.811 .000 10.918 26.678 ERGR .072 .023 .412 3.107 .003 .025 .119 .412 .428 .405 .966 1.035 IGR .068 .041 .214 1.636 .109 -.016 .151 .248 .242 .213 .989 1.011 1 DRGR .186 .164 .164 1.133 .264 -.145 .516 .066 .170 .148 .812 1.232 FXGR .008 .069 .016 .115 .909 -.131 .147 .039 .017 .015 .896 1.116 BOPGR .002 .001 .182 1.315 .195 -.001 .004 .186 .197 .172 .888 1.126 a. Dependent Variable: GDPGR Collinearity Diagnosticsa Model Dimension Eigenvalue Condition Index Variance Proportions (Constant) ERGR IGR DRGR FXGR BOPGR 1 1.773 1.000 .13 .03 .08 .09 .10 .03 2 1.313 1.162 .04 .24 .05 .16 .01 .15 3 .983 1.343 .01 .08 .01 .00 .34 .42 1 4 .851 1.443 .02 .20 .75 .00 .06 .02 5 .606 1.711 .30 .35 .01 .53 .03 .10 6 .474 1.933 .50 .10 .11 .22 .46 .29 a. Dependent Variable: GDPGR

58 G.J. C.M.P., Vol. 2(3) 2013:52-59 ISSN: 2319 – 7285

Residuals Statisticsa Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N Predicted Value -4.0208 89.5494 24.1633 13.39667 49 Residual -32.96745 101.20884 .00000 22.12078 49 Std. Predicted Value -2.104 4.881 .000 1.000 49 Std. Residual -1.411 4.330 .000 .946 49 a. Dependent Variable: GDPGR

Descriptive Statistics N Range Minimu Maximu Mean Std. Variance Skewness Kurtosis m m Deviation Statisti Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic Statisti Std. Statisti Std. c c Erro c Erro r r GDPGR 49 136.54 -18.44 118.10 24.1633 3.69445 25.86116 668.800 1.943 .340 5.204 .668 - - 22564.6 429.9058 3009.3412 9056134.59 BOPGR 49 20604.6 1960.00 396.804 -6.557 .340 44.828 .668 7 9 2 9 7 1 ERGR 49 895.48 -82.12 813.36 47.3384 21.19255 148.34784 22007.082 3.703 .340 16.364 .668 IGR 49 361.60 -86.11 275.49 25.5945 11.72121 82.04847 6731.952 1.281 .340 1.462 .668 DRGR 49 112.06 -50.98 61.08 3.8690 3.26475 22.85324 522.271 .351 .340 .948 .668 FXGR 49 331.76 -8.28 323.48 17.1227 7.40080 51.80563 2683.823 4.793 .340 26.345 .668 Valid N (listwise 49 )

Correlations GDPGR BOPGR ERGR IGR DRGR FXGR Pearson Correlation 1 .186 .412** .248 .066 .039 GDPGR Sig. (2-tailed) .201 .003 .086 .653 .792 N 49 49 49 49 49 49 Pearson Correlation .186 1 .105 .032 -.286* .065 BOPGR Sig. (2-tailed) .201 .474 .828 .046 .659 N 49 49 49 49 49 49 Pearson Correlation .412** .105 1 .038 -.159 -.088 ERGR Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .474 .795 .275 .546 N 49 49 49 49 49 49 Pearson Correlation .248 .032 .038 1 .071 .008 IGR Sig. (2-tailed) .086 .828 .795 .627 .955 N 49 49 49 49 49 49 Pearson Correlation .066 -.286* -.159 .071 1 .279 DRGR Sig. (2-tailed) .653 .046 .275 .627 .052 N 49 49 49 49 49 49 Pearson Correlation .039 .065 -.088 .008 .279 1 FXGR Sig. (2-tailed) .792 .659 .546 .955 .052 N 49 49 49 49 49 49 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

59